Announcement

**Ramo** · March 23, 2003, 06:01

For starters, the number of Kurds preferring their previous autonomy to US/UK-enforced obedience to Baghdad (assuming something worse doesn't happen, like Turkey invading).

**Ramo** · March 23, 2003, 06:08

Or, the number of Sunni Ba'athists who'd peacefully step away from their positions of authority to be replaced by Shia democracy.

Or, the number of Iraqis who'd elect an Iran-friendly government.

Yes, there's lots of neat values to find out.

**Zylka** · March 23, 2003, 06:15

Originally posted by Ramo
For starters, the number of Kurds preferring their previous autonomy to US/UK-enforced obedience to Baghdad (assuming something worse doesn't happen, like Turkey invading).

I'd like to add this one, but have to hammer a few things out with it. What responsibility does the US have in divorcing the Kurds from the former state (If that's what you want - or do you just want autonomy)? There are minority populations all across the globe screaming for autonomy [Alberta, to a degree

] - so just why are their claims just under a fresh new government?

...and I'm not aware of the current autonomous power to Kurds the Iraqis might actually have officially granted? Halabja is something to consider, no?

**Zylka** · March 23, 2003, 06:17

Originally posted by Ramo
Or, the number of Sunni Ba'athists who'd peacefully step away from their positions of authority to be replaced by Shia democracy.

Or, the number of Iraqis who'd elect an Iran-friendly government.

Yes, there's lots of neat values to find out.

I'm starting to think all of your questions fall under a little one that goes:

-Percentage of the Iraqi population that are thankful the US invaded, and how things have (so far) ended up after the conflict:

So do you have any other excuses not to participate and risk saying "I WAS WRONG" when the war is over?

**Ramo** · March 23, 2003, 06:21

If the US is actually in this for democracy and human rights, then it absolutely ought to support an independent Kurdistan. They've been victims of ethnic cleansing from everyone in the region - Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. They clearly want to be independent.

And yes, Northern Iraq, where the Kurds live, is autonomous due to the no fly zones. Not "officially" though. Of course Turkey bombs 'em everyone once in a while ("to hunt down terrorists").

**Zylka** · March 23, 2003, 06:27

Originally posted by Ramo
Or, the number of Sunni Ba'athists who'd peacefully step away from their positions of authority to be replaced by Shia democracy.

If it's not peaceful - that is their ridiculous choice, and may be included in Iraqi soldier casualites. Although I'm not read up on this currently planned switch in government, isn't the process democratic?

Or, the number of Iraqis who'd elect an Iran-friendly government.

Another population having free will to choose what they want in government? What's Democracy again?

**Ramo** · March 23, 2003, 06:37

If it's not peaceful - that is their ridiculous choice, and may be included in Iraqi soldier casualites. Although I'm not read up on this currently planned switch in government, isn't the process democratic?

There is no currently planned switch in government. The point is that if there's democracy in Iraq, there'll be a huge civil war with many times more casualties than this war will bring. Of course, I doubt there'll actually be democracy in Iraq, and we'll probably just hand over power to a Sunni Ba'athist general.

Another population having free will to choose what they want in government? What's Democracy again?

Again, the point of that was to demonstrate that there won't be democracy in Iraq.

Percentage of the Iraqi population that are thankful the US invaded, and how things have (so far) ended up after the conflict:

Not just after, but a few years after. Things don't happen instantaneously.

**Zylka** · March 23, 2003, 06:40

Originally posted by Ramo
If the US is actually in this for democracy and human rights, then it absolutely ought to support an independent Kurdistan. They've been victims of ethnic cleansing from everyone in the region - Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. They clearly want to be independent.

And yes, Northern Iraq, where the Kurds live, is autonomous due to the no fly zones. Not "officially" though. Of course Turkey bombs 'em everyone once in a while ("to hunt down terrorists").

I agree that free Kurdistan is needed, but I wonder how autonomous they actually are right now? The no fly zones takes care of care of the iraqi bombings - wouldn't they have any ground troops there to be oppressing them up until the end of the war? If so, post war iraq wouldn't dare touch them physically - and things couldn't possibly be made worse. Or is this a demilitarized zone as well?

I guess the question all comes down to whether or not life becomes worse for the kurds after the war - and you're implying it will?

**Zylka** · March 23, 2003, 06:50

So this does rest on whether or not they will set up a moderate regime eventually leading towards democracy, at least one that is far worse than Saddam. I don't really see a massive civil war possible even after a well structured occupation force slowly moves out, but it could be possible.

In the end, would you say that life will indeed progressively become better in Iraq after the war? The current questions lean towards those who made the main argument that the war itself would be the big humanitarian crime, so a fallback on whether or not the new set up will make for a better life seems a big problem.

**Ramo** · March 23, 2003, 06:52

The no fly zones takes care of care of the iraqi bombings - wouldn't they have any ground troops there to be oppressing them up until the end of the war?

No. The no-fly zones were implemented to insure no Iraqi air superiority, so they couldn't take back the North. And they never have.

If so, post war iraq wouldn't dare touch them physically - and things couldn't possibly be made worse.

Why wouldn't post-war Iraq touch them? And my main worry if the Kurds don't accept Iraqi domination, is Turkish, not Iraqi, invasion, and Turkey of course is one of the US' most important allies.

I guess the question all comes down to whether or not life becomes worse for the kurds after the war - and you're implying it will?

No doubt about it. For most of the other people, it'll probably be about the same, but could be considerably worse - if the civil war scenario takes place, and Islamists hijack the Shia side.

**Zylka** · March 23, 2003, 07:02

With your mentioned planned set up of the Kurds answering to Baghdad, I HIGHLY doubt they would do something so idiotic as to start killing them again... or the USA just comes back and says, "hey guys! Remember us? Yeah, well... we kind of liberated your people! Care to stop the genocide against your minorities before we do it again?"

What are the chances Turkey claims occupation over the Kurds once the dust settles? Isn't this absolutely against the current US post war plan? Because if it is, and Turkey defies it... We'll have a humorous and quick desert war to watch when this is over. The US will not take backsided bullsh*t, from even the richest of the poor.

**Ramo** · March 23, 2003, 07:02

So this does rest on whether or not they will set up a moderate regime eventually leading towards democracy, at least one that is far worse than Saddam.

What I personally think we should do would compromise the US' strategic position and lose our allies in the region - defend an independent Kurdistan, get rid of the Ba'athists totally and completely, and implement a real democracy. That's the only way I think we'll see that would lead to a substantial improvement in human rights. Of course, it won't happen.

I don't really see a massive civil war possible even after a well structured occupation force slowly moves out, but it could be possible.

I again ask you how many of the Sunni Ba'athists in power will peacefully give it up?

In the end, would you say that life will indeed progressively become better in Iraq after the war?

Depends entirely upon what happens. It could eventually be better, and it could also be considerably worse and turn into another Lebanon.

The current questions lean towards those who made the main argument that the war itself would be the big humanitarian crime, so a fallback on whether or not the new set up will make for a better life seems a big problem.

Since a war against Iraq first became an issue for Shrub, I have been against it because I didn't trust him with handling the post-war situation properly. There hasn't been a fallback.

**Drake Tungsten** · March 23, 2003, 07:06

Well, this thread is ruined. Kinda sad, really; I'm always interested to see how Z's serious threads turn out...

**Zylka** · March 23, 2003, 07:08

I didn't accuse you of using the fallback, but I'm of mind that most were happy with a regime change but didn't think the casualties of war would be worth it. That's the survey form in a nutshell

So the US is setting up a Sunni led government which by percentages sounds ridiculous, why does this exclude the majority Shias population, exactly?

edit: just found out that Sunnis are indeed a minority, just the largest one. You say they won't eventually embrace democracy as they lose a lotta clout at the polls (percentage wise), and so a clusterf*ck of the the smaller Shias and like sized minorities breaks out in civil war? Tricky indeed, but a stable environment ready for democracy will come after a few years, I believe. It's just how long, and whether or not occupation/rebuilding forces can do it right

Announcement

Harsh War Crtics: Values of the follwing needed for your apology after US/UK victory

Harsh War Crtics: Values of the follwing needed for your apology after US/UK victory

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment